MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAIKH Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant is facing trial under section 420/406, P.P.C. on the allegation that he was Managing Director in the Company known as Messrs Pakistan Commercial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. That the said company had closed their office, and the Director and Managing Director of the company were not available in the office. The F.I.R. was recorded by S.H.O. Mithadar on receipt of the application. After necessary Investigation the applicant was arrested. He moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge South, Karachi but the same was rejected vide order, dated 15-6-1988.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was working as General Manager with the salary of Rs.3,500 per month in the above company and he was neither Director nor Managing Director of the company, and therefore, he was not liable for the acts/omissions of the company. In his support the learned counsel has produced the appointment order, dated 4-7-1987, the agreement dated 30-5-1987 and the agreement dated 6-7-1987.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that millions of rupees have been misappropriated by the company and the other Directors and Managing Director have gone underground. The agreement dated 30-6-1987 and the appointment order, dated 4-7-1987 show that the applicant was appointed as Manager at the monthly salary of Rs.3,500 p.m. Agreement dated 6-7-1987 shows that the applicant himself had invested Rs.1 lac in the company and was to get profit at the rate of 6.5% per month. There is no guarantee that the documents regarding appointment of the applicant as Manager are genuine. The company has committed breach of trust of millions of rupees belonging to different persons as is clear from the F.I.R. It has not been denied that the applicant was working in the said company. So far the position in which the applicant was working in the said company was concerned, the applicant is yet to prove his case. The other Directors have already gone underground and there is likelihood that the applicant might abscond. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage, and the application is accordingly dismissed.

4. However, the applicant can repeat his bail application before the learned trial Judge after some material witnesses are examined.

5. S. G. D. /M-572/K Bail refused.